No my suggestions are my attempt to make the teams different yet equal. If you think trem should be imbalanced by design because that makes it *unique* then I wish you good luck with that philosophy.

Apparently one person's "imbalanced by design" is another person's "different yet equal". I think you need to use different arguments for why the things you consider imbalanced should be changed, because -- since I don't agree that any of them are in fact "imbalanced" -- saying that they need to change because the other team doesn't have an obvious equivalent isn't convincing. Without taking into account the myriad indirect factors that balance everything it really does sound like you're just advocating for fewer differences between the teams (which isn't to say that's inherently unwarranted -- there have been a few things I've evened out thus for sake of balance). It'd be more convincing to hear reasons why you think things are imbalanced without taking them out of their context. For example, you don't explain how the lucifer cannon is overpowered, just that it would be imbalanced if aliens had one, and then go on to compare it to the Quake 3 BFG without giving any basis for such a comparison.

No my suggestions are my attempt to make the teams different yet equal. If you think trem should be imbalanced by design because that makes it *unique* then I wish you good luck with that philosophy.

Apparently one person's "imbalanced by design" is another person's "different yet equal". I think you need to use different arguments for why the things you consider imbalanced should be changed, because -- since I don't agree that any of them are in fact "imbalanced" -- saying that they need to change because the other team doesn't have an obvious equivalent isn't convincing. Without taking into account the myriad indirect factors that balance everything it really does sound like you're just advocating for fewer differences between the teams (which isn't to say that's inherently unwarranted -- there have been a few things I've evened out thus for sake of balance). It'd be more convincing to hear reasons why you think things are imbalanced without taking them out of their context.

So instead of refuting anything I said you just state "its not imbalanced please write an essay proving this"I do this at a later time, but I feel its maybe a waste of time because your opinion is firmly rooted in your belief its perfectly or near perfectly balanced as it stands. Its not unreasonable to ask for the opposing teamsto have similar yet different methods, of equal power, to both attack and defend with. Items with unlimited ammo,or too many damage abilities in one item are bad design. (ie high damage with speed and splash)

For example, you don't explain how the lucifer cannon is overpowered, just that it would be imbalanced if aliens had one, and then go on to compare it to the Quake 3 BFG without giving any basis for such a comparison.

I listed the overpowered reasons, although stating this IS overpowered andwould not be allowed on aliens, yet humans are given such powers. Regardless of the indirect method,my point and list was to underscore how one team is given too much power in a single item.

The basis for the BFG weapon comparison, is this, its an overpowered weapon on purpose, and its treated as such withavailability restrictions and ammo. However the lucifer cannon has these features yet is cheap enough and easyenough to obtain and entire team can wield it.

In short closing, I do like the basilisk and mara changes, I do like improved fps, I do feel some of the humans buffswere unneeded, and some of the top alien nerfs were overkill (both slash reduce, health reduce AND regen reduce)

With the servers population slowly diminishing, and all the faces I seen over the last few years, growing slowly lesseach time I log on, I do hope trem can at least revive itself and not die in phases.

Scrape, I only agree with you at evolving (we were discussing it in game and letting aliens evolve only when on creep is actually my idea ), and partly on other suggestions.

Evolving - As I said earlier, I agree with you. I remember "too close to the enemy" thing was at least once long time ago. Then someone important said that this is a reward for attacking aliens base - swarm of feeding dretches. Well I guess it was supposed to encourage humans to leave their base (and it didn't work). Nonetheless it's unneeded now - humans have enough firepower to go through the map to aliens base and actually rush it. The point is that in some situations (mostly when aliens' base is in small room (hello window room) or in 15vs15 games) aliens can withstand only "short" attack (as they soon will run out of classes better than dretches as they won't be able to evolve) while humans with their repeaters are able to keep rushing for pretty long time. Not saying that this happens any often, yet it happens when, I believe, it shouldn't just to make game more enjoyable. The evolve limitation is also really annoying and confusing as many times you can't evolve when there's nothing on the radar. Letting aliens evolve only on creep will make it clear where you can evolve and where you cannot.

Flamer - can't really say if it's fine or not as I haven't used it in phase 4 yet. Yet I remember my mara once got burnt when I was behind a human running backward flaming dretches. I was dying and so was him, so I wanted to finish him, waited and watched his back growing as he was enclosing to me, I was about to bite and them boom I'm dead, he keeps running backward like nothing happened.

Battle Suit - Well if you want it to have a radar, why it can't have some mechanic muscles that help humans sprint or dodge (something like (but not fully mechanic) those robot things in Avatar or Matrix Revolution) IMO it's fine as it is

Rants and goons - I don't have any issues with rants hp nerf and especially goons hp nerf (as they didn't have any ), trample is quite buggy though.

Painsaw - I'm fine with damage, but not with range. My friend asked me how to throw a painsaw because he got sawed many times when he was meters away from the human. Happened to me many times when I was using it and fighting against. Of course could be unlagged, yet it wasn't happening that much with 1.1 range. Either reduce the range a bit or significantly increase it's cost.

It's also so you can't evolve in mid-air etc, or use a dretch to get past the turrets and then evo behind the RC.

Although the range could probably be lowered, and lowered to zero on creep.

Logged

Any maps not in the MG repo? Email me or come to irc.freenode.net/#mg.--My words are mine and mine alone. I can't speak for anyone else, and there is no one who can speak for me. If I ever make a post that gives the opinions or positions of other users or groups, then they will be clearly labeled as such.I'm disappointed that people's past actions have forced me to state what should be obvious.I am not a dev. Nothing I say counts for anything.

If we had to evolve on creep, there would be big jam-ups and much pushing and shoving about, amidst general confusion and resentment against those who do not have the concept of "shoot-and-scoot" (in this case being EVOLVE and scoot). And what about small rooms? Must we stand in a line outside like a depression-era amalgam of hopefuls, waiting patiently for the goon or rant to leave the exit so another dretch can squeeze in and evolve? No I say! We must stand against this!

Evolving - As I said earlier, I agree with you. I remember "too close to the enemy" thing was at least once long time ago. Then someone important said that this is a reward for attacking aliens base - swarm of feeding dretches. Well I guess it was supposed to encourage humans to leave their base (and it didn't work). Nonetheless it's unneeded now - humans have enough firepower to go through the map to aliens base and actually rush it. The point is that in some situations (mostly when aliens' base is in small room (hello window room) or in 15vs15 games) aliens can withstand only "short" attack (as they soon will run out of classes better than dretches as they won't be able to evolve) while humans with their repeaters are able to keep rushing for pretty long time. Not saying that this happens any often, yet it happens when, I believe, it shouldn't just to make game more enjoyable. The evolve limitation is also really annoying and confusing as many times you can't evolve when there's nothing on the radar. Letting aliens evolve only on creep will make it clear where you can evolve and where you cannot.

Reasons I agree:I find that mutations (evolutions) should take a LITTLE bit longer, based on how much higher of power you're evolving into. E.g.:if you evolve from a Dretch/Granger to a Tyrant, mutation process takes 3-4 seconds.If you evolve from a marauder to a tyrant, it takes 2-3 seconds.if you evolve from goon to tyrant, it takes 1-1.5 seconds.and so forth, obviously I haven't but heavy thought into the timing because it also depends on how close to the enemy you can evolve.

Reasons I disagree:-Please also keep in mind not everyone uses binds to evolve, such as new players. When they try to evolve and it tells them an enemy is too close, it teaches them how to evolve (when to evolve, where to evolve, etc).I know i've seen a few times where I stand long range and begin shooting a Dretch, only to find it evolves into a Tyrant and then I shoot a couple more bullets, and a 400hp tyrant dies in under 10 seconds from rifle.

-I find limiting the aliens to their base is possible, yet the Tremulous developers aren't leading the game that way. They're making it better than any other typical fps camping game.I believe aliens are the natural aggressors of the map and always should be.Please don't mistake that for who SHOULD be the agressors, humans need to use their firepower and corner down the aliens in order to be more effective, otherwise aliens will spread over the map like a virus and human vs alien generally leads to aliens winning.Although now in 1.2 it seems that it's very difficult to decide who would win in a fight, shotty s2 or goon? Still technically goon but much harder to accomplish due to more bullet spread(more chance of hits).

Scrape, I only agree with you at evolving (we were discussing it in game and letting aliens evolve only when on creep is actually my idea ), and partly on other suggestions.

[snipped]

well when we talked about it, I decided I should post it and some of the other ideas floatingaround before I completely forgot them. So I anyone hates the evolving idea, it was ALL Asvarox , but ifyou like it, it was a jointly created one =D

I had a totally worthless idea after, for the hovel, and post it here for shits and giggles.Here Goes:

HovelThe hovel functions like the booster, but instead gives a run debuff (like basi gas)You cannot have both poison or the run debuff, they cancel each other out, touch the hoveland your poison DoT is removed... Poison ImmunityTo limit the overpowered nature of a DoT(damage over time) and run debuff, when you are poisoned, after the effectwears off you are granted immunity to poison for 1.5*posion_duration. Same for the run debuff from the hovel, orthe basi gas. Currently, even though I'm an alien advocate, poison is far too powerful. If a human doesn't camp near a medistation, chances are he is dead before he can *run home*.

I listed the overpowered reasons, although stating this IS overpowered andwould not be allowed on aliens, yet humans are given such powers. Regardless of the indirect method,my point and list was to underscore how one team is given too much power in a single item.

The basis for the BFG weapon comparison, is this, its an overpowered weapon on purpose, and its treated as such withavailability restrictions and ammo. However the lucifer cannon has these features yet is cheap enough and easyenough to obtain and entire team can wield it.

You listed reasons that suggested it would be overpowered for aliens. But the teams aren't the same, and there are enough other factors involved that it (probably) isn't imbalanced for humans. And it isn't intended to be overpowered like the Quake 3 BFG, and I don't agree that it's too inexpensive. Basically, you enumerated your feelings on the matter without effectively persuading me to feel the same way you do, and so -- instead of just dismissing you outright because I don't agree with you -- I tried to tell you how you could present your thoughts in a manner I'd find persuasive.

I want better water effects like from the source engine (everyone thinks the ioquake 3 engine is better ) but anyway it'll be better if shadows were less laggy and are less buggy (through walls wtf is that all about)

Uh, no. There was nothing to refute because you didn't explain your positions, just asserted their correctness.

You listed reasons that suggested it would be overpowered for aliens. But the teams aren't the same, and there are enough other factors involved that it (probably) isn't imbalanced for humans. And it isn't intended to be overpowered like the Quake 3 BFG, and I don't agree that it's too inexpensive. Basically, you enumerated your feelings on the matter without effectively persuading me to feel the same way you do, and so -- instead of just dismissing you outright because I don't agree with you -- I tried to tell you how you could present your thoughts in a manner I'd find persuasive.

You're wrong about this, but given the tone of your response I am more likely to spend less time on what say in the future.

Preface:I started out the gameplay preview as a cheerleader for 1.2. I spent time on the server explaining the changes,and trying to convince players that all the changes were good. I love the basilisk changes and was willingto suffer through the rest, in hopes the final result would be fun. The server I play on, we took initiative, anddropped our 1.1 server immediately and started a 1.2. The motto was "lets support 1.2 so they can complete itquickly". I still try to play for an hour-ish, despite almost everyone I did play trem with, have permanently left, for other games (players, w/ 1/2+ years playing time :/) I love the improved fps over 1.1, but now im aghast, at thetrend for *balance* changes, the slowly dying server populations (in both 1.1 and 1.2 servers), and the seemly adversarial stance of the development team and some sycophantic supporters.

About my luci comments again:I used the alien target team as an example. That no such weapon or ability would be allowed for thatteam, However its always allowed for humans. why I ask?, why should one team receive so many items that instantly killlarge primary members of the other team, in one hit? The dretch was norf'd because it could kill a naked playerin two hits, but the lucifer cannon can one hit anything goon or less, and its "ok and balanced because trem is a different game, get over or play something else (many are choosing the later)"

Tone? So If I don't go "omfg 1.2 teh super" my tone is incorrect. The interesting thing is, you highlightyour *rooted beliefs* in the paragraph preceding a statement about my tone. My tone was only a statement to that, sillyeh?

So again, neither team should have:

Cheap items that can AoE(Area of effect) for massive damage.It removes skill and planning from the game and just ensures mindless spamming.(grenades, adv mara zap, etc..)

Any direct damage item, bite\weapon that can ONE HIT kill, a member of the opposing team.It also removes any skill from its use, no need to learn to avoid and *dance* an alien, just boom dead.While the frustrated alien gets nothing from it, fun wise, just respawn. Look at the stats for alienvs human death, it remains at 3:1.

(Lucifer cannon, and nearly the pulse ( pulse if great if you are playing, human, in a hall you can kill goonsbefore they manage the 2nd chomp)

No weapons are items with extremely low repeat rates and long ranges.(even though I love th basi, grab falls into this issue, psaw)

...Its just my opinion, that assaults and defenses should depend player planning and skill in aimingand predicting the enemies movements and not an array of those items, as it currently stands, that is the case.

Cheap items that can AoE(Area of effect) for massive damage.It removes skill and planning from the game and just ensures mindless spamming.(grenades, adv mara zap, etc..)

I have to disagree here. If buildings are spaced out enough, and if there is at least some effort at defending the base, a marauder attack can be easily thwarted. And all of that is achieved through planning/strategy.

On the other side however, to be able to zap effectively, one must be able to at least judge when to attack, and how to attack. And again, this is achieved through planning and strategy

In essence, the marauder is almost a glass cannon, except for the fact that in the hands of a skilled player, it is also a terminator. The same applies for grenades as well although a little differently.

So tell me, how would the game be better off by removing these AoE capabilities? We would have long grueling and predictable games, where nothing interesting happens.

Tone? So If I don't go "omfg 1.2 teh super" my tone is incorrect. The interesting thing is, you highlightyour *rooted beliefs* in the paragraph preceding a statement about my tone. My tone was only a statement to that, sillyeh?

What's incorrect is you shutting down the conversation by making assumptions about what I think and what I was or was not implying in my response to you. Your original post was well written and even though I didn't agree with what you said, I wanted to hear more because you didn't include enough for me to make a decision about whether or not I should change my mind to agree with you. So I (politely, I thought) explained what I needed in order to have a productive discussion. I'm not interested in people agreeing with me without good reason, just like I'm not interested in people disagreeing with me without good reason. If someone said to me "the blaster is overpowered", I normally wouldn't even bother with the appropriate response of "no it isn't." If they instead said something like "I see people using the blaster more frequently than the rifle, which means it's probably overpowered," then I'd have something to think about. If you thought the reasons you gave really were substantial enough to debate, what you should have done is just elaborate on them or explain them in a different way for my benefit*. In no situation does getting offended make someone more inclined to agree with you.

Cheap items that can AoE(Area of effect) for massive damage.It removes skill and planning from the game and just ensures mindless spamming.(grenades, adv mara zap, etc..)

I have to disagree here. If buildings are spaced out enough, and if there is at least some effort at defending the base, a marauder attack can be easily thwarted. And all of that is achieved through planning/strategy.

On the other side however, to be able to zap effectively, one must be able to at least judge when to attack, and how to attack. And again, this is achieved through planning and strategy

In essence, the marauder is almost a glass cannon, except for the fact that in the hands of a skilled player, it is also a terminator. The same applies for grenades as well although a little differently.

So tell me, how would the game be better off by removing these AoE capabilities? We would have long grueling and predictable games, where nothing interesting happens.

/opinion

AND those items you listed aren't cheap. Though I do believe the lucifer cannon is just a bit too cheap. As a side I like the new goon chomp. I've gotten it down, sometimes my goon gets secondsies, and even survives vs two humans!

Cheap items that can AoE(Area of effect) for massive damage.It removes skill and planning from the game and just ensures mindless spamming.(grenades, adv mara zap, etc..)

I have to disagree here. If buildings are spaced out enough, and if there is at least some effort at defending the base, a marauder attack can be easily thwarted. And all of that is achieved through planning/strategy.

On the other side however, to be able to zap effectively, one must be able to at least judge when to attack, and how to attack. And again, this is achieved through planning and strategy

In essence, the marauder is almost a glass cannon, except for the fact that in the hands of a skilled player, it is also a terminator. The same applies for grenades as well although a little differently.

So tell me, how would the game be better off by removing these AoE capabilities? We would have long grueling and predictable games, where nothing interesting happens.

/opinion

I didn't say to remove them. I said the issue is *cheap* nature of them. Now its not so much the casewith adv mara zap (the mara can only zap while alive) however the grenade is used as a *suicide* or item torelease at the moment of death. Perhaps make it stronger, but increase its cost, so the human team can take outa base but it would require an escort (like basis escorting the alien primary class to heal). That would improveteam planning (say_team: escort the grenadier!) Defending against waves of suicidal humans spamminggrenades, IMHO, isn't fun. Once its released you cannot do anything about it. (yes, build on the walls, but this isimpossible for the overmind, unless a map has a feature, so you can raise the overmind.)

I just also, in practice, its the effects of *many* AoE, firing at once, while the mara zap (single mara) is perfectlyfine, 4 adv maras, storming a base, becomes an overpowered ballet. Now I understand this is normally the resultof building as if the games mechanics are still like 1.1, were tight compressed bases were key, but unfortunatelybalanced maps for aliens, lead humans to make tight bases. Probably a bigger issue, is a set of map standards,and gameplay requirements for maps. Its probably worth everyone time, to improve existing maps, instead of morepretty unplayable ones.

So in conclusion about AoEs, they just should have much less significance in game play, and not be the primarymeans of defeating an enemy base.

Tone? So If I don't go "omfg 1.2 teh super" my tone is incorrect. The interesting thing is, you highlightyour *rooted beliefs* in the paragraph preceding a statement about my tone. My tone was only a statement to that, sillyeh?

What's incorrect is you shutting down the conversation by making assumptions about what I think and what I was or was not implying in my response to you. Your original post was well written and even though I didn't agree with what you said, I wanted to hear more because you didn't include enough for me to make a decision about whether or not I should change my mind to agree with you. So I (politely, I thought) explained what I needed in order to have a productive discussion. I'm not interested in people agreeing with me without good reason, just like I'm not interested in people disagreeing with me without good reason. If someone said to me "the blaster is overpowered", I normally wouldn't even bother with the appropriate response of "no it isn't." If they instead said something like "I see people using the blaster more frequently than the rifle, which means it's probably overpowered," then I'd have something to think about. If you thought the reasons you gave really were substantial enough to debate, what you should have done is just elaborate on them or explain them in a different way for my benefit*. In no situation does getting offended make someone more inclined to agree with you.

*Which it looks like you did a little in your last post

I'm sorry if it came out that way, most likely incorrect, but it was just my perspective thus far from my vantagepoint ingame, and from reading this forum. I guess this is the only source of my opinions on the matter.

When you say, "whether or not I should change my mind", it leads me to it, becauseeven though you are the projects developer, IMHO the gameplay\fun\balance should be determined by feedbackfrom the user base, even if it does not match developer ideas or the result of statistics.

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

When you say, "whether or not I should change my mind", it leads me to it, becauseeven though you are the projects developer, IMHO the gameplay\fun\balance should be determined by feedbackfrom the user base, even if it does not match developer ideas or the result of statistics.

Sure, up to a point, but whatever the balance between designing by fiat versus consensus should be, I don't think anyone really believes the game would be best served by somehow averaging the wishes of every person that ever plays it -- that could easily lead to something that no one actually likes. So (and, obviously, this is easy for me to say) I think it is important to be at least a little "elitist" -- the wiser a person proves herself to be the less I need her to back up her assertions with something impartially convincing. Which is exactly why I wanted to tell you (and, really, everyone else at the same time) how to be more convincing. I hadn't had any experience with you before so I couldn't take your opinions at face-value, but neither were you so gibberingly nonsensical (or rude) that I could comfortably dismiss you out of hand.

And now that we're finally on the same page we can have a debate about something of substance.

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

For that you just take the average of 200+ games...

Unfortunately, statistics will only give you data on results, but not *why* a gamewas lost or won. You can only infer the results, but never really grasp the real reasons andit will not show causality. (ie Humans won, Lots of flamer kills == flamer op, while the truth maybealiens had a griefer, that moved the overmind, built an egg to feed the humans)

When you say, "whether or not I should change my mind", it leads me to it, becauseeven though you are the projects developer, IMHO the gameplay\fun\balance should be determined by feedbackfrom the user base, even if it does not match developer ideas or the result of statistics.

Sure, up to a point, but whatever the balance between designing by fiat versus consensus should be, I don't think anyone really believes the game would be best served by somehow averaging the wishes of every person that ever plays it -- that could easily lead to something that no one actually likes. So (and, obviously, this is easy for me to say) I think it is important to be at least a little "elitist" -- the wiser a person proves herself to be the less I need her to back up her assertions with something impartially convincing. Which is exactly why I wanted to tell you (and, really, everyone else at the same time) how to be more convincing. I hadn't had any experience with you before so I couldn't take your opinions at face-value, but neither were you so gibberingly nonsensical (or rude) that I could comfortably dismiss you out of hand.

And now that we're finally on the same page we can have a debate about something of substance.

...just not right now. Gimme a little bit.

Yes, it does create a problem, since you cannot make a change, to suit everyone's desires, must maintain consistency to develop a standard. Also, its impossible to field requests to "game isleik wack lawlz", but:

(bear with me, its long, but it was the only way I could make the point, I'm attempting)Here is an example, take a automotive engineer, who has spent his\her life designing car interiors. S\hehas years of experience, and several successful interiors to his\her credit. However the latest carrelease by the auto manufacturer is met with "this seat is uncomfortable, the mug holder is the wrong spot,etc.." The engineer cannot solve this problem with "I'm am an experience egro engineer, you are just the user,you do not have the expertise I have, therefore your complaint about the uncomfortable seat is invalid."That doesn't happen, the seat is changed, and a test group, sits in the seat, and gives their opinions on"how comfortable it is". The engineers take the information from the test group, to re-engineer a better seat.(Not from ass to seat time contact statistics ) They don't however require the car owners to *prove*the seat is uncomfortable, no snaps shots of cherry red asses are acquired and analyzed, or doctor's statements.

So, my point is, it will be unsuccessful to get mr "leik wack lawlz" to prove himself, just at least hear his\hercomplaint and see if there is any basis or consensus on it.

Random thoughts about versioning:I think one of 1.2 major hurdle has been, its so vastly (game play wise) from 1.1, its being considereda mod, and not an incremental change or an improvement. So, 1.1.-1.2 to 2.0 no real difference, but to give an example, Slackware's devs went from 3.0 to 7.0 because "users assumed redhat was better because it was 7.0 while Slackware was3.0)." Yes complete head on wall banging stupidity...

I still hear "playing 1.2...", so in retrospect, I think using a version number, during development testing (instead of a code name or something) was a mistake. Its too late, to undo that, but perhaps something to consider for future changes or revisions. Something like, Tremulous, monkeybutt version, once its tested, it goes *live* as 1.3.

Are we able to evolve midair still? I read in an earlier post [i think in this thread] that you aren't able to. I liked the part of the game where i could wall climb as a dretch up a pillar or on a high ceiling and evolve in mid-air as a basi and grab them like a ninja .

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

For that you just take the average of 200+ games...

Unfortunately, statistics will only give you data on results, but not *why* a gamewas lost or won. You can only infer the results, but never really grasp the real reasons andit will not show causality. (ie Humans won, Lots of flamer kills == flamer op, while the truth maybealiens had a griefer, that moved the overmind, built an egg to feed the humans)

You don't have a clue what statistics are. If aliens really have a griefer in a significant amount of the 200 games, you might as well balance for it.

Here is an example, take a automotive engineer, who has spent his\her life designing car interiors. S\hehas years of experience, and several successful interiors to his\her credit. However the latest carrelease by the auto manufacturer is met with "this seat is uncomfortable, the mug holder is the wrong spot,etc.." The engineer cannot solve this problem with "I'm am an experience egro engineer, you are just the user,you do not have the expertise I have, therefore your complaint about the uncomfortable seat is invalid."That doesn't happen, the seat is changed, and a test group, sits in the seat, and gives their opinions on"how comfortable it is". The engineers take the information from the test group, to re-engineer a better seat.(Not from ass to seat time contact statistics ) They don't however require the car owners to *prove*the seat is uncomfortable, no snaps shots of cherry red asses are acquired and analyzed, or doctor's statements.

A better analogy would be that some people say the seat is better, some say it's shit, some say it needs to be wider/thinner/softer/harder etc. If people said what they thought the problem was then that's OK. Most people around here just suggest stupid un thought out "fixes" or "it sucks" with no backup. That's useless. In your analogy if a seating expert says it should be harder without backup then it would be considered. When so random person says that it should be harder it will just be ignored with all the people who are saying the opposite.In trem you switch "expert" for "proved not to be a lolling moron".

Kage Mane: AFAIK where you can evolve hasn't changed. If you could do it in 1.1 (sounds hard) then you should be able to do it now.

Logged

Any maps not in the MG repo? Email me or come to irc.freenode.net/#mg.--My words are mine and mine alone. I can't speak for anyone else, and there is no one who can speak for me. If I ever make a post that gives the opinions or positions of other users or groups, then they will be clearly labeled as such.I'm disappointed that people's past actions have forced me to state what should be obvious.I am not a dev. Nothing I say counts for anything.

Here is an example, take a automotive engineer, who has spent his\her life designing car interiors. S\hehas years of experience, and several successful interiors to his\her credit. However the latest carrelease by the auto manufacturer is met with "this seat is uncomfortable, the mug holder is the wrong spot,etc.." The engineer cannot solve this problem with "I'm am an experience egro engineer, you are just the user,you do not have the expertise I have, therefore your complaint about the uncomfortable seat is invalid."That doesn't happen, the seat is changed, and a test group, sits in the seat, and gives their opinions on"how comfortable it is". The engineers take the information from the test group, to re-engineer a better seat.(Not from ass to seat time contact statistics ) They don't however require the car owners to *prove*the seat is uncomfortable, no snaps shots of cherry red asses are acquired and analyzed, or doctor's statements.

A better analogy would be that some people say the seat is better, some say it's shit, some say it needs to be wider/thinner/softer/harder etc. If people said what they thought the problem was then that's OK. Most people around here just suggest stupid un thought out "fixes" or "it sucks" with no backup. That's useless. In your analogy if a seating expert says it should be harder without backup then it would be considered. When so random person says that it should be harder it will just be ignored with all the people who are saying the opposite.In trem you switch "expert" for "proved not to be a lolling moron".

Kage Mane: AFAIK where you can evolve hasn't changed. If you could do it in 1.1 (sounds hard) then you should be able to do it now.

Unfortunately, a manufacturer cannot rely on those that state "its better", because 1 person, who dislikes it,reflects 1000 silent people who also feel the same. The company has the desire to acquire more customers\clientsso complaints take priority, over satisfied customers. So we need to focus on solving what stops new players from playing, and old players from leaving. Yes, a manufacturer will take the word of an engineer initially but wouldnot go to production without market research.(ie do the people actually like the change)

Well, the lol'ing morons, whether they can make any coherent statement, are still infact players, and users of thegame software. So at least you have to investigate their complaints to see if it has grounds.

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

For that you just take the average of 200+ games...

Unfortunately, statistics will only give you data on results, but not *why* a gamewas lost or won. You can only infer the results, but never really grasp the real reasons andit will not show causality. (ie Humans won, Lots of flamer kills == flamer op, while the truth maybealiens had a griefer, that moved the overmind, built an egg to feed the humans)

You don't have a clue what statistics are. If aliens really have a griefer in a significant amount of the 200 games, you might as well balance for it.

Really, please explain how game win:loss, kills:deaths statistics will let you determine the existence of griefers,and how you that let you "balance for griefers". Wouldn't empirical observation, but more worthwhile?

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

For that you just take the average of 200+ games...

Unfortunately, statistics will only give you data on results, but not *why* a gamewas lost or won. You can only infer the results, but never really grasp the real reasons andit will not show causality. (ie Humans won, Lots of flamer kills == flamer op, while the truth maybealiens had a griefer, that moved the overmind, built an egg to feed the humans)

You don't have a clue what statistics are. If aliens really have a griefer in a significant amount of the 200 games, you might as well balance for it.

Really, please explain how game win:loss, kills:deaths statistics will let you determine the existence of griefers,and how you that let you "balance for griefers". Wouldn't empirical observation, but more worthwhile?

74.54% percent of me, disagrees (made those numbers up, <3 stats)

The griefers was your example....

If a game was lost because of a greifer, it will not have a large affect and a sampling of 1,000 games. If however, 350 games were lost out of 1,000 due to greifing, it will affect the statistics, and also should be dealt with (implementing some kind of serious anti decon system or something).

This is pretty basic stuff, and UniqPhoeniX allready explained basically exactly what I said, but you somehow, a. missed his explanation, and b. missed that he was responding to YOUR example.

Logged

Bucket: [You hear the distant howl of a coyote losing at Counterstrike.]

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

For that you just take the average of 200+ games...

Unfortunately, statistics will only give you data on results, but not *why* a gamewas lost or won. You can only infer the results, but never really grasp the real reasons andit will not show causality. (ie Humans won, Lots of flamer kills == flamer op, while the truth maybealiens had a griefer, that moved the overmind, built an egg to feed the humans)

You don't have a clue what statistics are. If aliens really have a griefer in a significant amount of the 200 games, you might as well balance for it.

Really, please explain how game win:loss, kills:deaths statistics will let you determine the existence of griefers,and how you that let you "balance for griefers". Wouldn't empirical observation, but more worthwhile?

74.54% percent of me, disagrees (made those numbers up, <3 stats)

The griefers was your example....

If a game was lost because of a greifer, it will not have a large affect and a sampling of 1,000 games. If however, 350 games were lost out of 1,000 due to greifing, it will affect the statistics, and also should be dealt with (implementing some kind of serious anti decon system or something).

This is pretty basic stuff, and UniqPhoeniX allready explained basically exactly what I said, but you somehow, a. missed his explanation, and b. missed that he was responding to YOUR example.

How will you know the loss was the result of griefing? How can you tell one loss, from an intentional lose, viawin loss statistics?

One thing statistics will never (I know you are aware of this) reflect, is individual player skill, and itis usually key in who wins or loses. More often than not, poor building causes humans to lose, overany alien class balance or skill. Humans win not due to well planned forward base construction, but nonstop rushing,spamming mobs, preventing alien evolution or build point regeneration.

For that you just take the average of 200+ games...

Unfortunately, statistics will only give you data on results, but not *why* a gamewas lost or won. You can only infer the results, but never really grasp the real reasons andit will not show causality. (ie Humans won, Lots of flamer kills == flamer op, while the truth maybealiens had a griefer, that moved the overmind, built an egg to feed the humans)

You don't have a clue what statistics are. If aliens really have a griefer in a significant amount of the 200 games, you might as well balance for it.

Really, please explain how game win:loss, kills:deaths statistics will let you determine the existence of griefers,and how you that let you "balance for griefers". Wouldn't empirical observation, but more worthwhile?

74.54% percent of me, disagrees (made those numbers up, <3 stats)

The griefers was your example....

If a game was lost because of a greifer, it will not have a large affect and a sampling of 1,000 games. If however, 350 games were lost out of 1,000 due to greifing, it will affect the statistics, and also should be dealt with (implementing some kind of serious anti decon system or something).

This is pretty basic stuff, and UniqPhoeniX allready explained basically exactly what I said, but you somehow, a. missed his explanation, and b. missed that he was responding to YOUR example.

How will you know the loss was the result of griefing? How can you tell one loss, from an intentional lose, viawin loss statistics?

If it isn't right away, than no, you probably couldn't tell the difference, but I don't see what that has to do with your point. If somebody decons the human's base this does not change the weapons needing to be stronger or weaker, and an experienced gamer will not help with this, he would be less accurate than stats as to determening how many times someone decons.

Here is the main point: Look at some of the graphs, if the the overall line is fairly straight, that means the game is pretty balanced. If, after 1,000 games, the line is more or less straight, (balanced between human and alien wins [as it has been]) than you can know that the changes are correctly balancing the gameplay, which includes, as to your example, greifers. Since we can assume that over a large enough sampling, the numbers show an average Tremulous game play, and that this will include some greifing, it seems safe to say that this is not a problem, balance-wise. As far as individual games go, that is for admins, and not something balancing deals with.

Besides which, I find it hard to believe you haven't at least noticed all the posts in this thread and others, even if you havn't taken the time to read them. In it, there are many examples of feedback being given to the developers, and it being acted upon. It is obvious that statistics and data must be needed to balance a game, and it is obvious that player feedback must also be needed. Given that both seem to be happening, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

You still are seeming to misunderstand what statistics do though, with enough sampling of data, you find what can be assumed to be the best averages, and you balance the game towards that.

Logged

Bucket: [You hear the distant howl of a coyote losing at Counterstrike.]

If it isn't right away, than no, you probably couldn't tell the difference, but I don't see what that has to do with your point. If somebody decons the human's base this does not change the weapons needing to be stronger or weaker, and an experienced gamer will not help with this, he would be less accurate than stats as to determening how many times someone decons.

Here is the main point: Look at some of the graphs, if the the overall line is fairly straight, that means the game is pretty balanced. If, after 1,000 games, the line is more or less straight, (balanced between human and alien wins [as it has been]) than you can know that the changes are correctly balancing the gameplay, which includes, as to your example, greifers. Since we can assume that over a large enough sampling, the numbers show an average Tremulous game play, and that this will include some greifing, it seems safe to say that this is not a problem, balance-wise. As far as individual games go, that is for admins, and not something balancing deals with.

Besides which, I find it hard to believe you haven't at least noticed all the posts in this thread and others, even if you havn't taken the time to read them. In it, there are many examples of feedback being given to the developers, and it being acted upon. It is obvious that statistics and data must be needed to balance a game, and it is obvious that player feedback must also be needed. Given that both seem to be happening, I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

You still are seeming to misunderstand what statistics do though, with enough sampling of data, you find what can be assumed to be the best averages, and you balance the game towards that.

So if the overall line in wins losses, on the X server, with flying grangers, spitting bouncing instant death barbs, and 1 shot kill blasters was *fairly straight*, would you call the X server balanced?

The point I've tried to make, but instead its lead to nerd-rage defense of the discipline of statistics is, itsimpossible to define balance and trying to do so via statistics, to me, shouldn't be the primary method. Since if yougave both teams instant kill weapons, and map clearing AoEs, if both team had them, its *balanced*. Does it *feel* balanced? Does it feel, regardless of which team you are playing, balanced in the regards, that both teams have equalchance at all stages?

We are in year 2, of the *improvement*, "I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.", is I imagine we will see year 3. I'm trying to say, things need to be *acted upon* timely, because at this point, I feel its more about love for analysis then actually completing anything.

Need to reach a final state, leave the door open for patches, and consolidate the trem playing community back intoone minded group, *eagerly awaiting* new model, new maps, and *needed adjustments.